Microwaving Jesus’s Burrito: The Problem of No Oral Modification Clauses

Accessing papers

If you are logged in as a member or a registered academic, you will see a link to download the paper for FREE. The link is just above the Add to Cart button.

If you wish to purchase the paper, you must be logged in first (click here to log in, or click here to register). You will then see the Add to Cart button. You may also have a choice of preferred format if both are available - PDF download costs £3 inc VAT, printed version costs £7.50 inc postage (no VAT). Choosing one or the other changes the price displayed.

When you are ready to check out, use the 'View basket' link in the top left of the website.

Anirudh Mandagere

April 2019

A paper based on the second prize winning entry in the Hudson essay competition 2018 which was presented to the Society of Construction Law at a meeting in London on 2nd April 2019

This paper analyses the context and likely impact of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rock Advertising. After a brief history of how the English courts have approached formalities in contract law, the paper addresses how the Court of Appeal has analysed NOM clauses prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, and analyses the Supreme Court’s decision. The paper examines the use of NOM clauses in the construction industry, and the unresolved questions thrown up by the Supreme Court. Finally, the author draws all these strands together to examine the possible ways in which the courts will approach NOM clauses in the future.

Part I: The courts’ approach to formalities – Part II: The approach of the Court of Appeal to NOM clauses – Part III: The decision in Rock Advertising – Part IV: Assessing Rock Advertising – What is the true distinction between the leading and concurrent judgments – What is the role of estoppel? – What is the relationship between NOM clauses and unfair terms legislation? – How does a term of ‘good faith’ interact with NOM clauses? – Part V: Future approaches to NOM clauses – What did Lord Sumption mean when he stated that ‘something more’ was necessary for an estoppel to succeed? – How can parties contract against the possibility of an estoppel? – Can all estoppels be pleaded in defence? – What impact would the difference between Lord Sumption and Lords Briggs’ judgments have in practice? – What is the role of good faith? – When will a NOM clause by caught by Section 3(2)(b)(i), UCTA? – Conclusion

The author: Anirudh Mandagere is a legal assistant at Keating Chambers.

Text: 15 pages

Paper number: 
216
April 2019 printed and online, 1MB
£3.00

Our papers

The Society has published nearly 400 papers since 1984. Some are published both in hard copy and electronically (numbered), others in electronic format only (number prefixed 'D'). The hard copy papers can be purchased (except those marked with an asterisk which are no longer available). They are all also available as PDF files to download.

Those available as downloads can be accessed free by members and registered academics (students and staff) - if logged in, they will see a link to the file just above the Add to Cart button on each paper's page. Others can purchase the PDF file for a cost of £3.00. Note that this sum includes VAT, since VAT is chargeable on digital files.

For further instructions on downloading, click here. The PDF file will only open on your computer if you have Adobe Acrobat installed (to obtain a free copy, click here). To save the paper to your computer, choose the 'save' icon on the Acrobat toolbar before opening the paper.

For personal use only

The papers on this website are for use by SCL members (and those who pay for them) only, and papers may be downloaded, printed and/or otherwise retained for that purpose only by members of the SCL (and those who purchase them).  The availability of all papers past and present represents a significant benefit to members of SCL and wider dissemination of SCL papers dilutes that to the detriment of the membership.  Further and more importantly, copyright in the papers belongs jointly to the writers of the paper and to the SCL, and the SCL is not therefore in a position to provide any wider licence.  Accordingly the SCL asks members and those who purchase papers not to disseminate papers more widely than their licence allows (e.g. by posting them on internal legal resource intranet databases and the like). 

Feedback